The End of the US Empire Can Be a New Beginning for Our Democracy

Only by understanding how Trump fits within our recent history will the left be able to figure out where we go from here.

March 21, 2017

Muslims, members of the Yemeni community and others gather on the steps of Borough Hall in Brooklyn, New York, on February 2, 2017, to protest President Donald Trump’s temporary travel ban on citizens. (AP Photo / Kathy Willens)

Want to Fight Back?

Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every Tuesday.

Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue.

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Support Progressive Journalism

The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.

Fight Back!

Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions you can each week.

Travel With The Nation

Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations, and explore the world with kindred spirits.

Sign up for our Wine Club today.

Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?

Donald Trump may be unhinged, erratic, demagogic, and unpredictable, but we cannot afford the luxury of pretending that his election was some kind of historical aberration. It was not. We need only look back at our history to see how we got here. Only then will we be able to move our country in a better direction.

This country was birthed in colonialism, genocide, and slavery, as well as revolution and democracy. To understand the current political moment, though, we need not go that far back. We might start instead on November 22, 1963, three months after the historic March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, when the young president of the United States was shot dead in Dallas, Texas.

A Texas Democrat, Vice President Lyndon Johnson, moved into the White House and pushed through the War on Poverty, and, under pressure from the black freedom struggle, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These brought monumental changes to the lives of African-Americans in the South and the North, but the struggle for “jobs and freedom” was far from over. Then Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in 1968. The country erupted in racial anger.

Johnson’s short reign also brought us the escalation of the Vietnam War, as the United States took on the increasingly bloody responsibility for maintaining the old European empires in Southeast Asia, Africa, South and Central America, and the Middle East—all in the name of the Cold War. The Vietnam War brought down Johnson and Nixon after him, but apparently the only lesson we learned as a country was to abolish the draft, and thus to ensure that college-educated, middle-class Americans did not have to risk their lives in our wars and therefore would not protest as we continued in our role as a military superpower.

Fast-forward to 1980. White Southern Democrats, economic populists in the New Deal era, found they could no longer abide a Democratic Party that dared to challenge their system of racial apartheid. First they joined George Wallace in the Dixiecrat-style American Independent Party; in 1980 they jumped to Ronald Reagan’s Republican Party, which openly courted them with not-so-subtle dog-whistling.

Reagan didn’t only bring in the white Southern Democrats but also the Northern “Reagan Democrats.” The term referred to a white working-class constituency motivated by opposition to desegregation of schools in Northern cities through forced “busing” and by opposition to feminism and abortion after the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. That alliance redrew the electoral map in the United States.

The new reality that Reagan brought with him was a dramatic one. The marginal tax rate for the richest Americans went from 70 percent down to 28 percent. The groundwork was laid for the World Trade Organization, whose protections Reagan rightly called a “Corporate Bill of Rights,” insulating global capital from financial, environmental, labor, and public-health regulations. Unions were challenged and battered by rulings of Reagan-stocked courts and the National Labor Relations Board. Wages stagnated. Federal funding, and then state funding, was withdrawn from higher education, leading to the current student-debt crisis. Environmental regulations of the Nixon era—clean air, clean water, even the Environmental Protection Agency itself—were ignored and undermined. Reagan gleefully ripped Jimmy Carter’s solar panels off the White House roof.

4

5

The Clinton era did little to change this trajectory. Adopting the “third way” philosophy of the Democratic Leadership Council—which came to be called neoliberalism— Bill Clinton and the Democrats ratified the WTO and its counterpart, the North American Free Trade Agreement, facilitating the movement of capital and hundreds of thousands of well-paid unionized manufacturing jobs out of the United States. Then they began unraveling New Deal regulations on the financial industry. Clinton also passed “welfare reform,” forcing single mothers off welfare and into a precarious and low-wage workforce, and, notoriously, signed into law a crime bill that resulted in the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of young and disproportionately black men for nonviolent offenses.

The Bush administration amped up the unraveling. The impact of these changes took a few decades to fully manifest. As wages fell, more women entered the workforce, bringing supplementary income to many formerly single-wage-earner families. Credit was cheap, with credit cards helping to fill many an income gap. Home values were rising, allowing families to access credit through second and third mortgages. And there were plenty of banks willing to provide endless amounts of student loans guaranteed by the federal government.

Meanwhile, working-class men, and some women as well, were joining the military when no other options presented themselves. It was a paycheck after all, even if it meant heading to one of our seemingly endless wars in Iraq or Afghanistan—now the longest war in US history—from which many of those same young soldiers returned wounded, crippled, suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, surviving on pain pills. The GI Bill that had transformed the WWII generation of soldiers was replaced by empty promises from for-profit diploma mills.

And then in 2008 it all collapsed. The global economic shell games were exposed; finance capital shut down, at least temporarily, and working-class America—in fact, the working class around the world—was thrown under the bus, costing people jobs, homes, and whatever shreds of financial security they once had.

Barack Obama did not substantially alter the system that had brought us ever-widening income inequality.

Despite the election of Barack Obama, an eloquent statesman for a new era, he did not substantially alter the fundamentals of the economic system that had brought us ever-widening income inequality. The combination of economic anxiety, the insatiable greed of the Koch brothers and their ilk, and a barely sublimated racism against a black man serving our country as president set the stage for Trump and Trumpism. We had heard his message in earlier presidential contests, with Ross Perot excoriating the “giant sucking sound” of NAFTA and Pat Buchanan calling out the “peasants with pitchforks” against not just NAFTA but the UN and immigrants and gays and feminists. But it took the financial collapse of 2008 and the dysfunction of the Tea Party–run Congress to allow a con man like Donald Trump to take power.

There was Bernie Sanders as well, taking up the banner of Occupy Wall Street, calling out the 1 percent on behalf of the 99 percent. We could argue endlessly about whether Sanders would have beaten Trump in a head-to-head contest, but we will never know for sure. He probably could have won over many of those swing voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania who tipped the Electoral College to Trump. But the Democratic National Committee was not going to let that happen because it did not believe it had to happen. The party establishment believed, as it has for decades, that it could win through identification with earlier civil-rights struggles, with liberal social policies, and with neoliberal economics. But it didn’t have convincing answers for working-class voters of any age or color.

Nor, of course, did Donald Trump, but he appropriated much of Sanders’s rhetoric about Wall Street, bankers and billionaires, and the globalized economy, adding his own Trumpian vitriol against immigrants, Muslims, gangs, drug dealers, and women. By the day of his inaugural rant, however, he had permanently and seamlessly substituted “Washington” for “Wall Street” and “politicians” for “bankers.” Since then, he has talked mostly about himself and his ratings.

As this history shows, just getting rid of Trump will not fix everything that has gone wrong in the United States. Focusing on his obvious personality disorders is entertaining, but it’s not a winning strategy. This is a historical moment of realignments and transformations, here and around the world. Donald Trump is merely a symptom. In order to influence the direction of this realignment, we need to put forward an alternative view of the future. We have to have a credible plan for building a 21st-century economy and civil society, not returning us to a mythological version of the 1950s.

The 21st century economy will continue to include manufacturing and we should not abandon our fight for fair trade rules just because Trump, too, now echoes those demands. We know he does not really understand what it means to “bring back good jobs.” Manufacturing jobs are “good jobs” not because of the work itself but the pay, respect, and benefits that came with unionization. Service jobs, tech jobs, retail jobs, health-care and childcare jobs could also be “good jobs” if workers were able to bargain for decent wages and working conditions.

Too many unions are, like Trump, clinging to fading memories of past glory.

Unions need to step up and reform themselves for the new era. Too many of them are, like Trump, clinging to fading memories of past glory. They have stopped organizing and focus instead on holding on to perks and benefits for current workers and retirees. The left does itself no good by ignoring contradictions and failings in much of the current union leadership.

We need to put forward our own plan for a massive twenty-first century infrastructure and jobs program, for climate-friendly green infrastructure jobs that pay family wages, and we need to insist that it be funded not by tax giveaways but by taxes on Wall Street transactions and on fossil fuels. And that infrastructure needs to include social infrastructure as well as bridges, water systems, high-speed rail, solar farms, broadband, and electrical grids. It also must make provision for social infrastructure like public schools and colleges, quality child care, and universal health care.

We have to work with both millennials and older workers to hold the Sanders coalition together, while broadening it where his was weak, by addressing the intersectionality of race, class, gender, and immigrant status. Historically, left-populist movements in the United States have failed to address racism and have been fatally weakened by that failure. We have to learn from that history.

Any millennial will tell you that climate change is today’s most urgent global issue. Droughts, floods, access to potable water, food security—those are the pressing issues of the twenty-first century. From Flint to New Orleans, it is clear that poor people of color will be the most impacted, or at least the first impacted, by our failure to address infrastructure and climate issues. These challenges require the kind of investment that could truly “make America great again.”

Ready to Fight Back? Sign Up For Take Action Now

We also need new global institutions in order to address climate change, to regulate an increasingly global economy and global financial institutions, to control global capital, to de-escalate wars and help build a global civil society. The United Nations and the WTO were both designed by the United States in moments of triumphalism (the end of World War II and of the Cold War); both are faltering. We need new institutions.

The early 21st century is witnessing the end of the United States’ role as the world’s sole superpower. Barack Obama understood that and tried fitfully to fashion the United States as a respected leader among equals in a family of nations. Donald Trump may understand it as well, and is postulating a return to mercantilism, nationalism, and militarism as his preferred response.

Peoples’ movements around the world need to coalesce around their own vision of a new global order, one committed to tackling climate change, regulating multinational corporations, and controlling financial institutions at the global level. But we must also adopt the important principle of “subsidiarity,” explicitly favoring the resolution of other issues on the most local level practicable.

This may be the end of the US empire, but hopefully it is not the end of our nearly 250-year experiment in democracy. Our most difficult challenge is reclaiming or reinventing our democratic institutions. First and foremost, we have to dramatically reduce the power of private money in politics. We have to curb the Super PACs, limit the influence of billionaires and corporations, and make it possible for non-wealthy people to win elections. For this we may be able to make common cause with unlikely allies on the right, but we have to act quickly. We will not survive another decade of this contagion.

Related Articles

Next we have to engage in the dirty business of electoral politics, something that so many on the left have eschewed for far too long, leaving us with the broken political parties we have today. We need not only to protest and harass, but to actually run for office, support those running, and then support our candidates when they are in office.

We are once again at a moment of consequential political realignment. Both major parties are deeply divided. We need to engage in shaping the newly emerging parties. The Working Families Party has been working in more and more states to pull the Democrats toward a more progressive economic populism, an anti-racist, social -democratic agenda. The Democrats may or may not move left; they, like the Republicans, may split. Whatever happens with the Democratic Party, we need to build a national effort, avoid the perennial turf wars on the left, recognize the urgency of the moment, and take responsibility for the future of our democracy and our country.

Daniel CantorDaniel Cantor serves as a co-chair of the Working Families Party National Committee, and is the party's national organizer. He has worked as a community, labor, and political organizer for 40 years.

Barbara DudleyBarbara Dudley has been a labor lawyer, a socialist-feminister writer, executive director and president of the National Lawyers Guild, executive director of Greenpeace USA, Assistant Director for Strategic Campaigns at the AFL-CIO, and founder of the Oregon Working Families Party. She current teaches at Portland State University.

The damage has already been too deep. The installation of W Bush in 2000 by the Supreme Court was sort of the final straw.
All of this is nice thought. Unfortunately, the country has always seemed to me to understate the permanent damage done by the election of Reagan in 1980. What was torn down probably won't be replaced easily or at any rate that will significantly help the one third of the populace that is already in, or now headed for permanent poverty. Only people in academia or still with their heads above water can believe this. For those of us who barely survived Reagan, sorry, there's probably lots more hardship on the way. People should never have tolerated what went on in the 1980's.

(10)(0)

William Sommerwercksays:

March 21, 2017 at 3:43 pm

Oversimplification follows...
As long as the Right continues to convince Americans that a more "cooperative", less exploitive society is Liberalism! Socialism! Communism!, progress will be difficult, if not impossible.

(8)(0)

Charles Rosengardsays:

March 21, 2017 at 12:57 pm

About welfare reform (I agree with most of the critique of the Clinton administration, WTO, Nafta, and such), consider the following: The Dems had lost 5 of the last six presidential elections by '92 with really bad consequences for working people and minorities. Clinton won with the help of Ross Perot, something that he could not count on in '96. He did advance woman's rights (Lilly Ledbetter) and gay rights and did try for a modified single payer. He did push through a tax increase on the rich. He lost the midterms badly and vetoed the 1st two welfare reform bills that got to him. The GOP had won in the past by beating up on Willie Horton and 'Welfare Queens'. The bill Clinton signed made lots of promises about childcare, health care, food stamps, etc. If Gore had been elected, welfare reform would not have turned out to be the cruelty that it became under Bush. Would have it been better to veto every bill and give the GOP another tool to wedge workers away from the poor? Politics is the art of the possible.

(5)(3)

Charles Rosengardsays:

March 21, 2017 at 12:42 pm

The article lost me at 'the dnc was never going to let that happen'. That's spin straight out of Putin and the Bernie-or-Bust spinners. HRC won the nomination because she had a constituency with Black and Latino voters that Bernie was not able to overcome in time. I have never seen a convincing argument that demonstrates anything else. She lost the general because, despite Bernie's urging (the platform was the best in history and he had to clout to hold her feet to the fire if she were elected), too many of those he appealed to went 3rd party at the same time that the evangelicals were supporting Trump in unprecedented numbers. Some math: In 2012, Jill Stein got just over 21,000 votes in Michigan. In 2016, she got almost 121,000 votes there. Trump won Michigan by 12,000 votes. Do the math. Pretty much the same in other close states. There is always better than worse. There are real world consequences to our choices. I would rather have a President who owes something to Bernie and Elizabeth than one who calls them names. Obama was not perfect; he 'evolved' on a number of issues due to pressure from his base. You can't primary someone who hasn't been elected. We could have had much more of an impact with HRC than with Trump. Too many of us did not make that choice. Certainly there is a lot of blame to go around, but consider this: Evangelicals voted for Trump, a libertine a history of affairs in greater percentages than the did for Bush '43 (W). They did so because of the Supreme Court and all the issues that would go there in terms of LGBTQ rights, contraception, and choice. They did not go third party. In both 2000 and 2016, many people on the left cast a simple protest vote whose only effect was electing a bad president. All campaigns make mistakes. Unfortunately, those on the right (or Reich, as the case may be), were 'in it to win it' where as those who voted Green and gave us Bush, the Iraq War, Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, and who knows what under Trump put their sense of purity above political maturity. Half a good loaf beats a serving of poison every time, but the 'I won't vote for the lesser of two evils' crowd have given the US and the world two helping servings of the latter. 16 years later I have seen no good argument for voting Nader rather than Gore. 16 weeks later, I see no good argument for voting Stein rather than HRC.

(16)(15)

Yi Zhangsays:

March 21, 2017 at 3:25 pm

Did you miss the collusion between the media and the DNC to sack Sanders? The scheduling of the debates for lowest exposure possible? The fake stories against Sanders ran across all main stream media? The pooling of the superdelegates to Clinton to show an insurmountable lead before a single vote was cast? The debate questions given to Clinton before the debate by the DNC? Do you not believe those happened, or do you think those actions by the DNC isn't indicative of "DNC was never going to let that happen"?

(14)(3)

Charles Rosengardsays:

March 21, 2017 at 5:26 pm

HRC's poll #'s got better after each debate, but, yeah, I'll give you that one. HRC had all the Superdelegates in '08...until Obama pulled away, then they went to him. I understand that the dnc didn't think Bernie could win and didn't trust a non-democrat (see reaction of the GOP establishment to Trump before he pulled away in the primaries), but don't believe that it was what really mattered. Bernie needed Latino and Black votes and didn't get them. Regardless, we all should have followed Bernie's lead and gotten behind the nominee and platform with the threat of a primary and split party in four years. Who was punished by not voting for HRC? Not, I think, primarily HRC.

(4)(5)

Doug Barrsays:

March 21, 2017 at 12:23 pm

Democracy was given birth and is sustained by divisions in society. 2600 years ago Aesop said "divided we fall" and even after 2600 years of evidence divisions are self-destructive you are still talking about parties. Don't you find it depressing our stupidity quotient has increased. Our only hope of survival, and it is getting slimmer by the day is democracy killing unity. https://thelastwhy.ca/poems/2011/2/5/democracy-a-debacle.html

(0)(1)

Brian Meadowssays:

March 21, 2017 at 12:49 pm

Looking for a proactive, positive program for a better future? Read this and tell me if it's at least a good beginning, and where we need to go from there.
http://nopartyline.blogspot.com/2011/06/to-all-my-fellow-americans-especially.html

(0)(1)

Brian Meadowssays:

March 21, 2017 at 12:47 pm

Divisions are always there in any society. Democracy is simply (or is supposed to be) a way of dealing with those divisions without coming to blows, swords drawn or guns loaded. No human can or should be trusted with absolute, unchecked power over others. That is a salient fact of life on this planet. Deal with it!

(2)(1)

Suzi Leonardsays:

March 21, 2017 at 10:05 am

"The Vietnam War brought down Johnson and Nixon after him, but apparently the only lesson we learned as a country was to abolish the draft, and thus to ensure that college-educated, middle-class Americans did not have to risk their lives in our wars and therefore would not protest as we continued in our role as a military superpower. "

This implies that the college-educated, middle class protestors opposed the draft, not the war. I challenget that premise.